The U.S. Constitution - Decoded!
  • Home
  • Events; Links to articles
    • Forefather's Monument Tour 19Oct2013
    • Badnarik Talk - photos
  • Study Group Schedule
  • Quotes from the Founders & Framers
  • Constitution Blog
  • Videos & Text of Talks
    • GBTP Tax Day Rally April 13, 2014
    • GBTP Tax Day Rally Video
    • M&P Interview Jan 2014
    • Activate Worcester #1
    • Activate Worcester #2
    • Speak Out! Chelmsford TeleMedia - Part One
    • Rally to Repeal Obamacare
  • Learn the Constitution - section by section
    • Declaration of Independence - the foundation of the new Republic >
      • Declaration of Independence - Introduction and Preamble
      • Declaration of Independence - Treason and Heresy
    • Constitution Principles & Prologue >
      • US Constitution: A Primer, Part One
      • US Constitution: A Primer, Part Two
    • Constitution - The Seven Articles >
      • US Constitution: Article I
      • US Constitution: Article II
      • US Constitution: Article III
      • US Constitution: Article IV
      • US Constitution: Article V
      • US Constitution: Article VI
      • US Constitution: Article VII
    • US Constitution - the Bill of Rights >
      • US Constitution: 1st & 2nd Amendments
      • US Constitution: 3rd-4th-5th Amendments
      • US Constitution - 5th - 6th - 7th - 8th Amendments
      • US Constitution - 9th Amendment

Guest blog post by RC, on Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Donald Trump.  

1/25/2016

8 Comments

 
I have come to form an opinion as to why Sarah Palin shattered the stream of conventional common sense thinking about not only being a conservative but why it’s important to support conservative candidates. While I do believe Mrs. Palin has sold out for her 30 pieces of silver, I also have concluded it is because she harbors hatred. Hatred of the GOP Establishment, hatred of the media, and hatred of what is happening to our nation. While I do share that hatred, it is NOT the starting point of the actions I physically take to combat the evil that is modern liberalism.

When a person, in my humble opinion, acts on the hatred, they do things that don’t serve the cause and will subject themselves to the very evil they hate. Case in point, Sarah Palin has endorsed a man who IS a liberal merely because he is the loudest in the room about the demise of this nation. “The Donald” does NOT shout his barbaric yawp over the microphones and in front of the TV cameras because he actually wants real reformative conservative change but because it suits his needs. It suits his ambitions. It suits his egotistical craving for notoriety and power. It suits his poll numbers. It suits his lust. By selling out, Mrs. Palin gave in to her hatred and endorsed that for future book sales, maybe a possible appointment in a Trump Administration, and out of malice with a heart filled with bitterness and strife.

I’m a conservative by choice. While I always advocate critical thinking skills in the body politic, I am also a passionate man of deep feelings. I act from a stand point of love of this nation and her people. LESS GOVERNMENT means more freedom. I want more people to be as free as possible in our Constitutional republic because I love people. Same can be said of less taxes which means more money in your pocket, my friends and fellow Americans whom I love. Go down the conservative list from there: life, family values, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, state’s rights, individual liberty, Constitutional law, and American excellence. Each of those cherished conservative values, beliefs and fought for principles is all about love of my fellow man. Not hatred. Therein lies the angst we conservatives have because it takes critical thoughts to achieve critical feelings and the left doesn’t understand this and/or does understand it and USES feelings to paint we conservatives as “haters” when it is they who act from hatred. NOT US!!!! That’s why I buckled the other day because of all people, I surely thought Sarah Palin understood this and she really broke my heart, which hasn’t mended as yet, because she gave in, LIKE A LIBERAL, to her hatred as evidenced by endorsing a man who has no historical record whatsoever of conservatism.

As I was told last night by a man whom has also inspired me, a State Rep who sits on the Republican State Committee with me who I won’t highlight on this post out of respect, but in spite of Mrs. Palin’s hatred and the quite frankly bone-headed acting out of her hatred, I must stay the course and will forever remain an activist in politics.

Please, join me in the fight to reignite the promise of America.

 
8 Comments

Supreme Court, Executive Orders, and Immigration

1/19/2016

8 Comments

 
The Supreme Court has apparently agreed to hear a case about Obama's executive orders NOT to deport illegal aliens.
 
This one is so simple it requires advanced degrees in both Law and English to misunderstand.
 
The duty of the President is to enforce lawfully passed, Constitutionally authorized, acts of Congress.  The Constitution gives to Congress the specific and SOLE authorization to makes laws regarding immigration and naturalization.  Therefore the President MUST enforce those laws, else be guilty of dereliction of duty.  [See note at end for exception.]
 
Dereliction of duty is a crime and misdemeanor ("high" being the status of the office rather than a descriptor of the type of crime or misdemeanor) which requires impeachment and, if guilty, punishment up to removal from office.
 
Executive orders are allowed only to permit a President to carry out his Constitutional duties.  It is not a method of circumventing the legislative branch or any other aspect of the Constitution.  Any executive order side-stepping proper Constitutional methods of governance is a usurpation of powers not granted, and are actionable by impeachment of such a President.
 
Note:  The only time this would not apply would be if Congress should pass (and a then-sitting President should sign) a law regarding immigration that violates the Constitution in some other fashion.  To use a silly example, say Congress passed a law stating that all immigrants from Poland be awarded free kielbasa for life.  Congress has no authority to conscript the goods of others (and is prohibited from doing so by various sections of the Constitution) therefore the Constitutional duty of the President would require such a law not to be enforced.

8 Comments

Lexington MA now wants to finish the job they stopped the British from doing in 1775

1/19/2016

5 Comments

 
The liberal hypocrites of Lexington will have a big celebration in April, commemorating the Battle of Lexington Green where the town militia stood united in purpose to STOP the British regulars from seizing the powder stores (=DISARMING the populace).  


One resident has submitted to the Selectmen a proposal to disarm the local populace:  a total ban of "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines" in Lexington. Said law to be based on one from Highland Park IL (because "gun-free" Chicago has no problem with illegal firearm violence, no sirree -- can the sarcasm drip any faster?). So Lexington wants now to be in the forefront of the move to disarm the populace - finishing the British job of 2+ centuries ago.  So why don't they spend April holding public rallies petitioning to rejoin the UK and holding signs asking Queen Elizabeth to forgive them and let them come home?


Details available here: Ammoland article


I cannot even start going in to the number of levels on which this is wrong; I would be here typing all night.


One thing is certain:  if this goes through in Lexington, this proposal will come to YOUR town or city next. Flood the Lexington Selectmens office with phone calls and faxes!
5 Comments

New Year's Day 2016

1/1/2016

6 Comments

 
The theme for this year will be the ideals and principles stated so clearly in the Declaration of Independence, and how the Constitution is an attempt to make of those ideals a working system of governance for the people.

This is something that had never and HAS never been done before – or since.  Countries are founded by conquest; conquest of land, vanquishing of a foe or foes.  Countries are founded by expansion; we have more people we’ll just scoot over and include this bit.  Countries are founded by secession or revolution; usually in anger but sometimes (as in New Zealand, Australia, and Canada) by mutual agreement. 

The United States did have to rebel and then fight a war – but unlike other countries we started from IDEALS.  These ideals grew out of the religious principles that originally brought Englishmen to this land, that they be able worship according to conscience and religious ideals.

Ideals are odd things.  We see them up ahead and above us.  We want to achieve them.  Yet reaching them is ALWAYS beyond our ability.  However, by striving we get much farther than ever we could by an admission that “this is too far; let’s not try.” 

And still as a country we are roundly castigated in any area where we fail to meet those ideals.  Those are supposedly “proof” that we didn’t really mean them (and therefore are the most vile and despicable of people), or that we are hypocrites, or that they are a cover for hateful and racist acts behind a veneer of self-righteous pseudo-sanctity.   Always, to cure these “abject failures of our evil system” all that is “needed” is to overthrow that system and substitute a system off someone else’s shelf and all will be well; we will achieve these Utopian goals and butterflies and unicorns will grace our cities.

What ideals are in the Declaration of Independence? 

  • That all humans are created equal in rights; equal in inherent worth; to be treated equally under the Rule of Law; equally worthy of the respect of every other human for our shared origin as creations of God.  (You are an atheist? –That’s fine; the writers of the Declaration were not.  Put on your big kid pants and deal with that historical fact.)
  • That all humans were endowed by God with Rights.  Those rights are inherent in us, and because they are inherent in us those rights pre-date, transcend, and supersede ALL government.
  • That the true and correct purpose of government is to secure (defend, protect, guard from danger, make certain, hold inviolate, put beyond hazard) those rights.
  • That the people may (perhaps must?) change any government  which becomes destructive of the very rights it is its job is to protect.

In future posts during 2016 – perhaps a new section of this web site – we will explore those ideals and principles further. 

In liberty, wishing you always to have ideals of your own to strive towards:  Happy New Year!


6 Comments

    Author

    Amateur (in the original meaning) Constitutional scholar and Libertarian.

    Archives

    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2018
    January 2016
    September 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    April 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    February 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012

    Categories

    All
    Constitution
    Guns
    History
    Quotes
    Treaty

    RSS Feed

Web Hosting by iPage